What is I-O?

Industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology is the scientific
study of the workplace. Rigor and methods of psychology are
applied to issues of critical relevance to business,
including talent management, coaching, assessment,
selection, training, organizational development,
performance, and work-life balance.

And the Survey Says . . .The 2002 SIOP Member Survey Results

Janine Waclawski
Pepsi-Cola Company

Allan H. Church
PepsiCo Inc.

Seth Berr
PwC Consulting

The First Online Member Survey Ever

The semi-annual SIOP member survey results are in, and we have some important and exciting information to share with the Society as a result. For starters, this year was the first time ever that the survey was conducted entirely online. This is an important milestone for several reasons. First, it represented a big cost savings to
SIOP, since paper-and-pencil administration and mailing costs were eliminated. Second, and more importantly, it allowed us for the very first time ever to survey the entire membership, including students and international affiliates. And, third, it allowed us to use branching (i.e., a more sophisticated method for probing survey questions in depth)a process that does not lend itself as well to paper-and-pencil survey administration. All of these factors led to a big improvement in the SIOP Member Surveyboth in terms of the content and the process.

More Member Participation Than Ever Before

The 2002 member survey was administered in January 2002 at which time links and passcodes were e-mailed to all SIOP Fellows, Members, Associate Members, International Affiliates and Student Affiliates with registered e-mail addresses. In total, 4,860 invitation e-mails were distributed and 1,891 responses were completed online. This years response rate (the best to date at 39%) represented a significant gain over the 2000 and 1999 survey response rates (see Table 1 for a comparison). In addition, not only does this represent a significantly improved response rate but it also marks the first census member survey conducted by SIOP (in contrast to the sample surveys conducted in years past). This too is an important milestone. By enabling all of the Societys members to participate, we have increased our members ability to have their voices heard by the Executive Committee. This is especially important because SIOP committee chairs specifically developed many of the survey questions asked this year for the express purpose of committee planning for the future of the Society.

In sum, this means that by going online we were able to involve more members in the survey process, receive more input from our members, employ a more sophisticated survey process (i.e., branching), and do this all for less cost than ever before!

Table 1

Survey Response Rates Since 1999

Year of
survey

Surveys mailed

Surveys returned

Response
rate

2001

4,860

1,891

39%

2000

1,542

400

27%

1999

2,957

390

13%

Note. All tables and figures include ratings of Fellows, Members, Students, Associates, and International Affiliates unless otherwise noted.

The following results were presented to the SIOP Executive Committee on April 14, 2002 in Toronto after this years annual Conference. The purpose of the 2002 member survey was twofold. First, we wanted to assess the satisfaction of Society members with respect to member benefits and benchmark any changes from the 2000 survey when these items were first introduced. Second, we wanted to assess key questions and areas of interest for many of the SIOP committees for future conference, workshop, and action planning purposes.

Member Satisfaction Scores

The results of 2000 and 2002 satisfaction questions can be found in Table 2. In 2002, survey participants were asked to rate the extent to which they were satisfied with 26 aspects of
SIOP. Each question was rated on the following scale (1 = very satisfied, 2 = somewhat satisfied, 3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4 = somewhat dissatisfied, 5 = very dissatisfied, 6 = dont know). It is important to note that these scale anchors were the opposite of those used in 2000. Therefore to make the ratings comparable to the 2000 results, the 2002 ratings were reverse scored. All responses to each of the items were tallied and average scores by item were computed. Dont know responses were not included in this average.

Table 2.

Satisfaction Ratings for 2000 and 2002

2000 ranking

2000 avg.

2002 avg. (ranking)

1. TIP

4.52

4.48 (1)

2. SIOP membership
directory

4.38

4.45 (2)

3. Administrative Office

4.34

4.30 (3)

4. SIOP Web page

4.29

4.20 (7)

5. SIOP as a professional organization

4.27

4.25 (5)

6. Value of my SIOP membership

4.27

4.27 (4)

Keeping membership informed of changes

N/A

4.21 (6)

7. Quality of hotel accommodations

4.20

4.10 (8)

8. Professional Practices Series

4.18

3.88 (12)

9. Organizational Frontiers Series

4.13

3.84 (16)

10. Reporting Society election results

4.12

N/A

11. SIOP job placement services

4.04

3.72 (21)

12. Conference city location

4.03

4.03 (9)

13. Member benefits compared w/ other orgs.

3.97

3.94 (10)

14. Quality of posters

3.95

3.88 (14)

15. Strategic direction & objectives of SIOP

3.94

3.90 (11)

16. Quality of presentations

3.92

3.88 (13)

17. Mix of topics comprising session content

3.90

3.85 (15)

SIOP JobNet

N/A

3.80 (17)

18. Candidate nomination process

3.87

3.79 (19)

19. Conference costs

3.84

3.80 (18)

20. Conference submission selection process

3.80

3.73 (20)

21. Preconference workshops

3.69

3.60 (23)

22. Committee volunteering/assignment process

3.64

3.71 (22)

23. Promoting I-O to other areas of psychology

3.54

3.37 (24)

24. Promoting I-O to business

3.25

3.14 (25)

25. Hotel room availability

2.61

2.51 (26)

Overall while this years satisfaction scores were slightly lower on average, our results indicated that the 3 highest areas of member satisfaction are TIP (4.52 in 2000, 4.48 in 2002), the SIOP Membership Directory (4.38 in 2000, 4.45 in 2002), and the SIOP Administrative Office (4.34 in 2000, 4.30 in 2002). These were also the top-ranked for satisfaction in 2000. Conversely, the data also showed that the three lowest-rated areas of membership satisfaction were those regarding hotel room availability at the annual SIOP Conference (2.61 in 2000, 2.51 in 2002), SIOPs ability to promote I-O to business (3.25 in 2000, 3.14 in 2002), and SIOPs ability to promote I-O to other areas of psychology (3.54 in 2000 and 3.37 in 2002). Again these were also the three lowest-rated satisfaction items in 2000. These areas of lower satisfaction were consistent across all respondent types (i.e., academics, practitioners, members vs. students, etc.).

However, there were some shifts in the satisfaction scores since 2000. Most notably, ratings of member benefits and the strategic direction of SIOP increased rather significantly in the rankings (moving from 13 to 10 in 2002 and 15 in 2000 to 11 in 2002 respectively). Ratings of the Frontier Series and SIOP job placement services trended downward somewhat (moving from 9 in 2000 to 16 in 2002 and 11 in 2000 to 21 in 2002 respectively).

Write-in Commentary Responses

In addition to the closed-ended survey items, respondents were also asked to provide their thoughts on 13 open-ended or write-in commentary questions. Four of these asked participants to give responses to general issues about the Society (see Tables 36), while the others were geared toward more specific issues of concern to
SIOP. Responses to each of the questions were content coded to identify major themes for each question asked. Next, the number of like responses was tallied for each major theme. In general, response rates for these write-in items were quite good and are depicted in each of the tables below.

Table 3.

What are the Most Positive Aspects of SIOP Membership?

1,159 responses

Annual Conference

24%

Networking/building relationships

22%

TIP

15%

Information
exchange/learning

13%

Belonging to a community of professionals

9%

JobNet/Job Placement

4%

SIOP publications (Frontiers, Professional Practice)

3%

SIOP Web site

2%

Scientist-Practitioner focus

2%

SIOP membership directory

2%

The credentials

1%

Good value for the money

1%

Administrative Office

1%

Concern with licensure issues

1%

Table 4.

What are the Least Positive Aspects of SIOP Membership?

1021 responses

Lack of marketing of I-O psychology

17%

Imbalance between academic & practitioner focus

13%

Conference location/timing, costs, & size

12%

Hotel availability/costs at Conference

10%

Politics/elitism

8%

Requirements/costs of membership

7%

Strategic direction/size of SIOP

6%

Mix of Conference and publication topics

5%

None

5%

SIOP Web site

4%

Not enough networking/professional development opportunities

3%

Processes for committee assignments and conference

submission selections

3%

Quality of conference sessions

(presentations, posters, workshops)

3%

Too focused on U.S./Canada and nonminorities

2%

Format of SIOP membership directory

1%

TIP

1%

Table 5.

What are the Greatest Trends Impacting I-O Psychology?

985 responses

Impact of technology

20%

The Internet and Web-related trends

17%

Economic/market changes (Enron)

10%

Changing nature of work/jobs

8%

Identity and communication of I-O field

8%

Licensure/legal issues

6%

September 11th/terrorism

6%

Globalization/international factors

5%

Discipline cross-fertilization/competition

5%

Changing demographics (gender, age)

4%

Diversity/multiculturalism

4%

Greater focus on bottom-line results

4%

ScientistPractitioner splits

2%

Performance assessment/coaching

1%

Table 6.

What Critical Issues Should Be Addressed By the SIOP Executive Committee?

757 responses

Licensure/working with other psychology areas

38%

Name, definition, & promotion of I-O

21%

Greater diversity, minority, and international focus

8%

AcademicPractitioner divide

5%

Validity of testing/personality instruments

4%

Strategic direction of SIOP and I-O

3%

Link between I-O curricula and jobs

3%

Work Stress/worklife integration

3%

OD/Change management issues

3%

Technologys influence

3%

Ethics

2%

Effects of terrorism and economy

2%

Need for APA journal focused on I-O

2%

Conference submission review process

1%

Hotel problem at annual Conference

1%

Improvement to SIOP Web page

1%

Committee Specific QuestionsHighlights

The majority of the 2002 survey was dedicated to questions aimed at key issues and areas of specific interest to the following SIOP Committees: annual Conference and submission process, professional development, continuing education and licensure, visibility, international experience, overlap between
I-O and related disciplines, TIP, electronic communication, and the consultant locator system. Given the length of the survey and the need to conserve space in TIP, below are some of the highlights of our findings in each committee-specific section. A copy of the survey findings in their entirety will be placed on the SIOP Web site for those of you who are interested in seeing the full report.

Members Ratings of the Annual Conference

Given the growing dissatisfaction of members with limited hotel availability for the annual SIOP Conference, the Executive Committee decided to ask members what options they would prefer for future conferences. The majority of members, when given the choice between holding the annual Conference at a single conference hotel with a limited number of sessions or at multiple hotels or even a convention center with large numbers of sessions, chose the convention center (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Which Annual Conference Location Option Do You Find Most Attractive?

In addition, we also asked members how much the conference location influenced their decision to attend and what factors were most important in selecting a conference location. The results showed that conference center location (city) is not a major factor in influencing members decisions to attend. In fact only 30% of respondents said location influenced their decision to a great or very great extent (18% and 12% respectively). The majority of respondents (70%) said that it only impacted their decision moderately, to a small extent or not at all (29%, 26% and 15% respectively). With respect to important factors in selecting a conference city location, members clearly indicated that convenience is what they are looking for. Specifically, respondents ranked attributes such as good flight availability, hotel room quality, easy airport access and restaurants within walking distance of the conference hotel as the most important factors to consider when selecting future SIOP conference venues (see Table 7).

Other Interesting Findings

Table 8 contains a number of the more interesting survey findings organized by each of the SIOP committees that asked specific questions.

In Summary

Member areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction were very similar to those identified by the 2000 survey. Namely SIOP members appear to be most satisfied with: TIP, the Annual Conference, and the SIOP Administration Office, and least satisfied with hotel room availability at the Annual Conference, and with efforts to promote I-O to business and other areas of psychology.

As we said in 2000 when we last reported on the survey (Waclawski & Church, 2000), when all is said and done, survey results themselves do not cause change. It is important to remember that any survey effort is only as good as the action which results from it (Church &
Waclawski, 2001). Our experience in presenting this to the SIOP Executive Committee was a very positive one. More specifically, the committee members were very interested in the results and expressed a strong desire to follow up on many of the issues raised by the survey. We fully expect that many of the unique findings will be used by SIOPs committees to help improve the offerings for members and to plan for the future. SIOP President, Ann Marie Ryan, specifically addresses many of these issues in the TIP article that follows.

Table 7.

The Ranked Importance of the Following Attributes for a Conference Location

Average

1. Good flight availability to location

2.48

2. Hotel room quality

3.53

3. Easy access to the airport

3.86

4. An array of restaurants within walking
distance from
the hotel

3.92

5. Warm weather

4.84

6. Cultural activities
(museums, the theatre, cinemas, etc.)

5.57

7. Nightlife

5.90

8. Family activities
(theme parks, parks and recreation, etc.)

7.21

9. Sporting events

7.69

Note. 1 = most important and 9 = least important

Table 8.

Summary of Committee Specific Survey Results

Conference Submission Process

94% of those who submitted and reviewed papers for the Toronto conference said that the new elec tronic submission and review process was more convenient.

Professional Development

The majority of respondents (58%) indicated that they are not likely to attend workshops other than those offered at the SIOP Conference.

Most members (70%) want conference workshops held on the Thursday before the SIOP Conference as opposed to 17% who prefer workshops during the Conference, 6% on who prefer Sunday all day, 4% who prefer Sunday morning, and 3% who
pre
fer Monday.

71% of respondents said that offering CE credits for conference sessions would have no effect on their intention to attend a SIOP workshop.

CE Credits and Licensure

16% of survey respondents are licensed psycholo gists, and 84% are not.

Most respondents receive their CE credits through regional conferences (63%), followed by SIOP (37%), and self-study (30%).

Respondents were mixed in their opinions as to whether SIOP should support or oppose mandatory licensure of I-O psychologists. Specifically, 57% of licensed psychologists said that SIOP should support licensure, whereas only 25% of those who are not licensed believe that SIOP should support licensure (see Figure 2 for details).

SIOP Visibility

81% of survey respondents reported that someone from the media had interviewed them in the past year. Of those interviewed, 79% said that the interview resulted in a media story or quote, and 85% said that they felt adequately prepared to deal with the media.

International Experience

Slightly more than half of survey respondents (53%) have no experience applying psychology in an
inter national setting.

Different disciplines within psychology can learn and benefit from one anothers expertise in boundary- spanning practice areas. (1.68)

I-O psychologists should be professionally concerned about non-I-O psychologists practicing beyond their areas of education and training. (1.76)

I-O graduate training programs should adopt a more integrated curriculum that includes relevant courses from other disciplines (e.g., listening and intervention skills). (2.02)

Non-I-O psychologists entering organizations will result in lower or inconsistent standards of work in the area of I-O psychology. (2.17)

Certification should be required for individual assessment. (2.34)

Certification should be required for executive coaching. (2.60)

A universal set of standards should be developed that would apply to all disciplines working with organizations. (2.63)

TIP

When asked to rate their level of interest in reading about the following topics in TIP (where 1= extreme- ly interested, 2 = good bit of interest, 3 = moderate interest, 4 = slight interest, 5 = no interest), respon- dents reported that they were most interested in:

Unusual or unique I-O applications

1.75

Summaries of published research

1.92

Perspectives on I-O from outside the
field

2.02

Career Issues

2.06

Profiles of eminent people in I-O

2.51

Teaching

2.90

Humor

3.10

Crossword Puzzle

4.47

43% of respondents said that page length was not a factor in determining which TIP articles hold their interest, followed by 35% who said they prefer articles that are 3 to 4 pages in
length.

The majority of survey respondent (60%) said that they would like SIOP to have more interactive communica tion tools. The top three communication tools respon dents would like to see the Society add are electronic mailing lists (45%), bulletin boards (37%), and chat rooms (9%).

Figure 2. What Should Be SIOPs Position on the Licensure of I-O
Psychologists?

Thank You!

We thank the following people for their invaluable help and support in conducting the 2002 SIOP member survey. First and foremost we would like to thank Wanda Campbell (the outgoing chair of the Professional Practice Committee) for asking us to sponsor and conduct this years survey.

Many thanks to Bill Macey, Mark LoVerde, Matt Glowacki, and the team at PRA for helping us surmount the seemingly insuperable task of putting the SIOP survey process online, hosting the online survey, and providing us with the raw data for our analyses.

Thanks to Lee Hakel, Larry Nader, and the rest of the incomparable SIOP Administrative Office staff for helping us access the SIOP e-mail database.

We would also like to thank the Executive Committee for their helpful suggestions in the process and the survey content itself.

And, last but certainly not least, a round of thanks to all of you who took the time to respond to the 2002 member survey. We appreciate your candor in the process and sincerely hope that you found this to be a worthwhile endeavor.